Appeal No. 2004-2249
Application No. 09/820,159
administering a beneficial drug to eye 29 at an osmotically
metered dosage rate. (See, e.g., Column 10, lines 45-49; Figure
5.) Given the collective teachings of Trese and Zaffaroni, we
agree with the examiner’s determination (answer at 3) that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found in the prior art
the requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine
Zaffaroni with Trese. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d
1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(citing In re Dow Chemical Co., 837
F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
of appealed claims 1 and 5 as anticipated by Trese; (ii) 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 2 as unpatentable over Trese;
and (iii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 6 as unpatentable
over Trese in view of Zaffaroni.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007